Whats Happening with 3.10. And how is it going to proceed?
tim at rowledge.org
Tue Jan 9 18:21:10 UTC 2007
On 9-Jan-07, at 10:12 AM, Ralph Johnson wrote:
>> -My final wish is to, as soon as possible, get back to
>> a state where version histories are present enough so
>> those of us who bug track have a way of finding out
>> when and how things changed. Who changed them. And a
>> good chance of guessing why and with what intent. I am
>> indeed having difficulty with that with 3.9-7067.
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. We want to have a complete
> history of what we did so it is possible to go back and time to find
> when things stopped working. Why can't you do this for 3.9?
Ralph, the problem is that during the 3.9 dev cycle the changes file
ran out space and was compressed. So all those version histories went
Now , I *do* have a partly complete rework of the source accessing
stuff (and bugger all spare time to do anything with it) that could
avoid that problem. It would, technically, be plausible to add that
to a 3.8.1 image and then load all the packages Marcus built during
the 3.9 work (at huge cost to his sanity, sleep and social life) and
*not* do the compression. That should get us a 3.9 with all version
info intact. A lot of work - and I'm not volunteering to do it! - but
you might consider it as an option. The extra good news is that with
a more flexible source code access system in place one could consider
ways of storing version history off to the side in some manner so
that you can have it or not at will. Just one of the benefits of
getting away from a string assumption of integer indices into text
files as your only source access.
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Useful random insult:- He fell out of the ugly tree and hit every
branch on the way down.
More information about the Squeak-dev